Problem solving and convergent bargaining: An analysis of negotiation processes and their outcomes

Many negotiation analysts theorize that negotiation processes determine negotiated outcomes, but none has empirically tested this hypothesis across multiple cases. This research fills this gap through an examination of thirteen bilateral and multilateral cases involving the United States. U.S. negotiators' reports on discussions with their counterparts, printed in the Foreign Relations of the United States series of declassified Department of State material, provide the primary data source through which I assess process and outcome for each case. I use case studies and content analysis of negotiator statements to compare process and outcome.; The theorized processes fall into two categories: problem solving or convergent bargaining. Problem solving involves discussions of each negotiator's needs; convergent bargainers focus on their own positions. The research supports hypotheses that problem solving leads to integrative outcomes and convergent bargaining leads to compromise outcomes. Integrative outcomes are theorized to improve all negotiators' utility while compromise outcomes satisfy each negotiator on some, but not all, issues. The study also identifies process trends through six stages of each negotiation. Integrative outcomes correlate with sustained problem solving during later stages of the talks. The study suggests that formula development provides a focus for sustained problem solving and finds evidence that negotiators progressed from formula development to detail resolution. An evaluation of the relationship between outcome and issue importance tempers these results. The study finds that negotiators did not resolve very important issues integratively, and therefore did not truly integrate both parties' needs.; As a secondary objective, the study examines hypotheses regarding additional variables' affect on process and outcome. The conclusion highlights four variables: possession of the resources under negotiation, negotiator's alternatives to an agreement, formula development and issue framing. The first two appeared to determine negotiating countries' power relationship. The last two appeared to influence negotiators' conceptual guides for how to achieve their objectives. These findings are more tentative than the comparatively thorough examination of the process-outcome relationship. The same variables did not affect each case, so these results are based on a smaller sample. The research therefore identifies additional variables for which future focused comparisons would prove useful.